Realms Beyond Emperor: The DSG's

[Arizona_Steve]

I'll put my name down for this - hopefully T-Hawk won't object too much to my participation after my warmongering suggestions in LK41 ).

Continuing the warmonger theme, I assume that it's OK to take techs as part of a peace treaty, with the caveat that we give at least one of our techs in return.

If we're behind in tech, I guess the best strategy would be to get gold/turn payments from other civs in exchange for our luxuries/resources.

We could eliminate commercial opponents in addition to scientific ones, but that seems a bit lame, even by my standards

 

[T-hawk]

OK. Let's hold off until RBD19 finishes, for my own game load as well. GM1 looks like it might have a lot of action to go, although I'll venture a guess that it'll finish up before RBE7 "Russian Researchers" gets too time-consuming.

You can sponsor it then if you like, or I will if you'd like. Currently signed up: Sirp, T-hawk, Speaker, and Arizona_Steve. It's not necessarily a warmonger game; we'll see where it leads us.

 

[Sirp]

Ok, we'll hold off for a while

I'll be happy to sponsor it once my current two games are over.

I'm not sure how much more warmongering is going to happen in GM1, shouldn't take *too* long I don't think.

'Pointy Stick Research' is something which might or might not be allowed. I guess that if we start falling behind, we do have to have an out of some kind, so I don't think it's unreasonable to allow it.

Oh also, I'm thinking that we would abhor the concept of the Great Library. Anyone who gets it is trying to acquire technology without researching it themselves or buying it at a fair price. As such we will not build the GL ourselves, and if we capture it before we've discovered Education, we will raze the city to the ground.

-Sirp.

 

[T-hawk]

Once this game hits the Industrial Age, we'll be on the Mother of All Nationalism Slingshots.

Patch 1.21f: "Improved random free tech selection for the Scientific civ trait."

Or maybe not.

As for Pointy Stick Research, I'd suggest this: If the enemy will cede a tech completely clear, we can take it. We can't pay as part of a peace treaty to buy a tech, though. How's that sound?

And yes, no Great Library sounds like a good idea.

 

[Speaker]

Let's not wait too long. The first turn or two each are relatively low committment, and RBD19 is definitely wrapping up. I would imagine one more turn for each of us.

 

[Reagan]

Oh also, I'm thinking that we would abhor the concept of the Great Library. Anyone who gets it is trying to acquire technology without researching it themselves or buying it at a fair price. As such we will not build the GL ourselves, and if we capture it before we've discovered Education, we will raze the city to the ground.

How about considering construction of the GL so abhorant that you immediately declare war upon the civ that builds it and do not make peace with them until you have captured and/or destroyed the GL? You could wait until any current deals expire so as not to sully your reputation, of course.

 

[Speaker]

How about considering construction of the GL so abhorant that you immediately declare war upon the civ that builds it and do not make peace with them until you have captured and/or destroyed the GL? You could wait until any current deals expire so as not to sully your reputation, of course.

The variant seems difficult enough, no? And what if they are on the other side of the continent with other civs in-between? Or on another continent?

 

[Sirp]

With all these high aggression games going around, I thought it would be good to have an interesting game, that let the players choose the aggression level, rather than the variant rules.

It would be possible to make the rule that we refuse to trade with anyone who has the Great Library until it expires, but I don't think that's really necessary either.

Also, the war-on-GL rule is too unpredictable wrt its difficulty. If the world superpower builds the Great Library in their capital, well that's going to make the game a tad difficult all of a sudden!

-Sirp.

 

[Gothmog]

Speaking of high aggression games, I think I'll make a plug here for GM-2 and see if anyone has any additional comments to add. Sirp definitely inspired this one (as annares did with GM-1), but once again I had been thinking along similar lines. I want to get closer to AW, but not get there quite yet.

The idea is Allways Extort. We can get our techs from extortion. We have to declare war on anyone who wont give us tribute (i.e. Peace renegotiation). Of course this means war with the first few civ's we meet, so it could be over in the Ancient age. Not for the faint of heart (any interest AZ?), or those who abhor a loss. In some ways getting to the industrial era will be a moral victory (or an amoral one perhaps), and getting to the modern era a win. Two things I am still working out - are we bound to keep peace for the 20 turn duration, or should we be allowed to attack at will (I am leaning towards the latter, we have no respect for anyone), and do we start with 30-40 turns of expansion before the rule kicks in (I am leaning towards no expansion period, that will make it really close to AW - just with pointy stick research).

The game will be played as the Greeks (Hoplites are a must for the Ancient Period), I am thinking on Continents with minimum % land, standard map. The players from GM-1 have preference, but there were only 4 (including myself) and I am not expecting that all will want to play in GM-2, Hopefully I can get 5 for GM-2. This is just a plug to get feedback and garner interest, I wont be starting it for at least a couple of weeks.

Edit: Oh, and if I need to say it - it will be played at Diety.

 

[JMB]

Gothmog,

I am not sure if I'll be up for it (war takes a lot of time...), but I think if you want to start getting closer and closer to an AW type situation you should 1) have to declare war on a civ on meeting them (tech trades, map info trades, etc. allowed) and 2) can only remain at peace with a particular opponent for 10 turns (but, you can never accept anything as part of the peace treaty...). During your brief periods at peace with another civilization, you may purchase techs for cash only (besides, no one will accept gpt payments from you after the first time you break the peace treaty...) and may not broker your techs.

I think this sort of game should be played on a Pangea continent (70% water) to ensure that you get contact with everyone fairly early on... (after all, the earlier you get contact with them, the slower their ability to research new techs will be (and hence, the, relatively, weaker units you will have to deal with). Furthermore, since you have Hoplites, they shouldn't be able to damage you very easily with ancient age, and even medieval age, units). Position wise, I think you want to be located near a continental corner, so that you only have one main front...

The only other thing I think you need to consider is the fact that your golden age will likely be triggered very early. I haven't thought much about how to maximize it, but some thinking should be done along those lines.

JMB

 

[Gothmog]

I thought you might be the player I would lose JMB.

So what you are saying is: 1) no initial expansion period, 2) attack at will (within 10 turns). Basically you agree with my initial feelings.

My thoughts about continents instead of pangea is that if you could take over your initial conitinent then you might be large enough to hold your own vs. the other continent. On a pangea you are in an active war with everyone from the beginning. You are right about the tech being a problem, but I am not sure pangea really solves that. Anyway, I don't necessarily expect to win this one so maybe we could swap between continents and pangea until we do win one! Actually our start in GM-1 would have been great for Always Extort (with Hoplites manning the chokepoint).

As far as the GA, I think it will be OK to get it early and build up enough Hoplites to defend our initial expansion as well as do some pillaging. To make use of it one will want to be near some bonus grasslands or other bonus squares.

 

[JMB]

Gothmog,

About playing, we'll see. It depends on when you start the game and what else I am involved in at the time.

Your comments about my thoughts are almost right on. I remember Urug indicating that there was no time for expansion in his AW game (he didn't research pottery or make a granary in the capital). Expansion would come through "pointy stick" persuasion...

I had a bit of a problem with the attack at will part though. I was thinking it should be more like a 10-turn (or 5-turn) peace treaty that is honored for its duration (care would need to be taken so that we don't abuse the AI by just using the very short period for troop consolidation and positioning when the AI is expecting peace to last for 20 turns... (perhaps the length of a peace treaty can be changed in the editor?)) I think that attacking at will (ie, after 1, 3, etc. turns) might harm the AI pretty badly (so might the 5 or 10-turn peace treaty, but I don't know...).

I think that GM-1 has essentially accomplished exactly what you are want to do with GM-2. There has been no point at which we have ended a war when we haven't extracted something for it (and if we have, I seriously doubt that we needed to...). So, for the most part, I think GM-2 is essentially a remake of GM-1 (of course, our starting luck (2 settlers and an advanced tribe), and position, with GM-1 probably made the game a whole lot easier (read Emperor difficulty or below) than if we hadn't gotten those settlers.

About the golden age. I think you would want to try to have at least two cities as large as possible (likely without the benefit of a granary) to maximize the amount of increased commerce. After going for IW at max, research should probably continue 1-scientist style...

You might want to consider having raging barbs in this game as this will likely tie up a considerable amount of the AIs initial troop resources and should also hinder their growth.

Your comment about continents versus pangea is a good one. Perhaps continents with 60% water might work better, but I am not sure... Maybe Urug will see this post and provide his thoughts.

JMB

 

[Sirp]

Gothmog, I don't think that there should be an initial expansion period, although this will make it MUCH harder.

I also think that if we take payments other than gpt off someone for peace (and that's what we're going to do if they want peace!) then we should give them the whole 20 turns without war.

umm....with the amount of warmongering going on, I seriously doubt that we'd ever want to declare war on anyone we didn't have to in this game.

-Sirp.

 

[Gothmog]

interesting...

I see what you are saying about GM-1 vs GM-2, JMB, although very early in the game we didn't declare on everyone. It would have been quite alot harder if we had. As Sirp says, with no initial expansion period GM-2 will be much harder (thus hoplites and a GA will help - I agree about wanting atleast 2 cities by that time). IW is key, but actually Greece doesn't start with WC either... I still think IW is the way to go. Then I have a question about whether to beeline to lit (to rush the GL with a GL ), or if extortion of techs will be enough.

Clearly the AI expects 20 turns of peace and will always offer the goods in a peace negotiation so not giving it to them is actually a bit of an exploit. I think we should either: 1) always redeclare war right after we extort them, or 2) always give them 20 turns of peace (unless they redeclare on us). I am guessing that #2 will actually be a bit harder, as with #1 we can get tech, keep assaulting, get tech, eliminate the civ; but with #2 we have to reposition our troops more often. I am open to either variant.

It would be perfect if the length of a peace treaty could be changed in the editor (I like 5 turns), I have no idea if that is possible though I doubt it.

Edit: New name for this variant, as suggested by Sirp, if we go with option #2 will be - protection money. For option #1, maybe - exploit war?

 

[Sirp]

The thing that I don't like about having an initial 'expansion phase' is it feels too much like us saying 'well this variant is a little too tough, so we have to have some concessions'. If the variant is too tough, play an easier variant, or (heaven forbid), play on an easier difficulty level.

My idea for the game was that we are a civilization which is perfectly happy to let other civilizations survive and live, so long as they recognize our superiority and give us tribute. It wasn't meant to be a version of Always War where you could rip the AIs off. If you go and look at the original Always War game, you'll see that Arathorn *did* want to be able to do that, but Sirian and others talked him out of it.

I don't think that'd be a good idea. That'd be like, "Always War, but where we can play on the AI's gullibility".

Also, I don't see why we'd want to reduce the peace treaty time. We'd want it to go for as long as possible. If there are seven AIs, we might manage to make peace with a couple of them; the other five are still going to be at our throats! If we did manage to make all seven AIs give us tribute at the same time, and thus made peace with them all, well then we'd be doing pretty well! In fact that'd be a moral victory in itself, as all the world recognizes our superiority and pays us tribute!

-Sirp.

 

[Gothmog]

I was in fact saying 'this variant is a little too tough, so we have to have some concessions', although it can be looked at as an easier variant too. I am looking at these games as a lead in to a true always war, hoping to learn something about how to handle that mother of all variants. I may in fact try an always war game with an initial expansion period too (as opposed to POW like GM-1). I did also consider playing on an easier difficulty level, and may try an Emperor always war before the Diety one, but in my experience Emperor is much easier than Diety so I don't think it would be as hard (though I haven't tried it yet). As we know research is the toughest part of Always War. I agree though that the point is not to play on the AI's gullibility and we should allow for the 20 turns of peace in this circumstance. Although I do think it is a reasonable variant to play the other way too, just a bit easier.

IMO, the reason to shorten the peace treaty time would be to eliminate a civ before they become a problem again. Say Rome before they get lots of Legions. But I don't think it would make a big difference either way.

The other thing I was thinking is that if we do play an 'exploit war' game, we could never call another civ up. If they came begging for peace we could take tech from them and then re-declare war on the same turn - like the initial contact negotiations.

I appreciate the comments/discussion, any other opinions out there?

 

[JMB]

I think that we've gotten two separate games sort of mixed together. Gothmog seems to want to go the AW route, while Sirp is suggesting a much different variant that still gets at certain aspects of the AW concept.

In truth, right now, Sirp's idea is quite appealing since we'd be forced into ancient wars will every civ we meet and have to learn how to expand in spite of that. These wars would continue until we finally inflicted enough damage on an opponent that they would consider giving us concessions for peace. To me, this game seems like it has the potential to be quite hairy during the early game (until we become reasonably powerful), becoming progressively easier as our power grows. One nice thing about this scenario is that we probably won't have to engage in a whole lot of industrial/modern age warfare (I think most of us have a pretty good handle on how to effectively wage a war in these ages...), but will probably have a lot of ancient/midieval war.

Another nice thing about this variant is that we wouldn't necessarily have to go for conquest or domination, we could go for space or even *gasp* a diplomatic victory...

One potential problem we might encounter is what to do when a civ has nothing to offer us for peace...

JMB

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, I would like to do an AW type game with the ability to extort techs (or otherwise get some tech help). Then move on to either a true AW, or an AW w/expansion phase. Though I think it may be true AW next.

I am not sure how much fun playing out a game wherein we could extort cash and techs from all the other civ's would be. Though it would certainly be a challenge to get a diplomatic win at that point (without using the MA/MPP exploit).

 

[Sirp]

Gothmog: To be honest, like Sirian said in the original Always War thread, I would have no interest in any type of game which allows extortion where we don't keep our word. I don't think the game handles that well enough to make it a fun game. Like doing a RoP Rape, I'd just feel like the game was tainted the whole time I was doing it.

I don't know about you, but I haven't played an Always War on Emperor yet. Yes, I know that Emperor is *alot* easier than Deity, and I know that this is meant to be an all-Deity thread, but you have to crawl before you can walk right? I'd imagine that AWE would give us lots of practice for AWD. Alternatively, we could try an AWE, but where the tech rate is adjusted to be the same as on Deity.

-Sirp.

 

[Arizona_Steve]

Last night I was considering the idea of a "No Wars" game with the following rules.

(1) We always cave in to tribute demands.
(2) If war is declared on us, we do everything in our power to end the war at the earliest opportunity.
(3) No alliances against any civ that hasn't declares war on us, although we are allowed to get alliances against any civ that does declare against us. Let others do our fighting for us!

Naturally this has been inspired by the French stance on the "War for oi... erm... War against terrorism", so I would suggest that we play as France.

RBE8 - "The surrendering French"... I like it